Which tracker holds the most accurate crypto funding data? NAUT tested 3 on 23 rounds announced between 30 September and 28 October 2026, checking amount, date and lead investor against each round's own announcement. On the preregistered headline measure, the mean score per round from 0 to 3, NAUT scored 2.61, Crypto-Fundraising.info 2.35 and DropsTab 2.13. The 23 rounds were drawn from NAUT's own records, so NAUT covers every one by construction, and NAUT's lead on that measure comes from coverage: on the 17 rounds all 3 trackers carry, DropsTab and Crypto-Fundraising.info scored 46 of 46 and NAUT 45 of 46, missing the lead investor on Erebor.
NAUT published and ran this test, and NAUT sells 1 of the tools compared. The criteria, the sample and the rival list were written to prereg.json on 31 October 2026 before any tracker was scored. 1 scoring choice came after registration, the Walapay lead check, and the method below names it. Read the coverage figures as a property of the test design, and the amount, date and lead checks on shared rounds as the comparison. Anyone listed can ask NAUT to remove their page at https://naut.so/legal/data-deletion.
How this test was built
Crypto funding data accuracy in this test means 3 checks per round against the round's own announcement, and nothing wider than that.
- The sample. NAUT's 40 most recent funding rounds with a disclosed amount, a disclosed announce date and a live naut.so company page, announced between 24 September and 28 October 2026. Read from NAUT's database on 30 October 2026. Because the sample comes from NAUT's records, NAUT has a record for all 23 scored rounds by construction.
- Ground truth. For each round, the company's own newsroom or press release, an investor's own newsroom, or the outlet that broke it. 23 of the 40 rounds had a primary announcement that could be fetched and quoted. The other 17 were dropped before scoring and count for no tracker.
- The checks. Per round, per tracker: the exact disclosed amount, a date within 3 days of the primary announcement, and the lead investor named in that announcement. The lead check passes when the announced lead appears in the tracker's backer list for that round, with or without a lead mark from the tracker. It was skipped on the 6 rounds whose announcement named no lead, and on Walapay (see the next bullet). That leaves 62 applicable checks.
- 1 change after registration. The prereg applies the lead check whenever the announcement names a lead. Walapay's announcement names Gen Venture Capital, and all 3 trackers carry Generative Ventures, a firm that could not be confirmed as the same entity. The Walapay lead check was excluded after registration for that reason, and
prereg.jsonwas left as registered. Counting it either way moves all 3 trackers by the same amount, so no rank changes. - The headline measure. As registered: the mean per-round score from 0 to 3 across all 23 scored rounds, with a round that a tracker has no record of scored 0, plus the count of those no-record rounds reported separately. The prereg words that count as "no page for the company". This article counts any round the tracker has no record of, which also includes pages that list only older rounds or none. By the narrower page count, Crypto-Fundraising.info has 2 (its Mecka and GMI Cloud pages returned 404) and DropsTab 0.
- Tracker pages. DropsTab's per-company pages at
dropstab.com/coins/<slug>/fundraisingand Crypto-Fundraising.info's per-startup pages atcrypto-fundraising.info/startups/<slug>/, read on 31 October 2026. What each page returned is saved in this article's working filesds-rounds.jsonandcf-rounds.json, and every rival value below comes from those files. - 1 unreadable page. DropsTab's GMI Cloud page came back without the data block NAUT's parser reads, so its content is unknown. Under the no-record rule it scores 0. Left out, DropsTab's mean would be 2.23 across 22 rounds.
- A disclosed weakness. NAUT's own record for 39 of the 40 sampled rounds was ingested from cryptorank.io, which returned HTTP 403 to NAUT's fetch and is marked untested below. NAUT's figures were still checked against the primary announcement for every scored round, so a wrong value would have counted against NAUT like any other miss.
- Retest. 15 December 2026, same criteria, a fresh sample.
Which tracker had the most accurate crypto funding data on these 23 rounds?
Ranked by the preregistered mean score per round. No record counts the rounds a tracker scored 0 for having no record of the round, and checks right is a second view of the same scores. Crypto-Fundraising.info is CF.info in both tables. 7 of the 23 announcements named no lead, so those rounds carry 2 checks, and a tracker right on all 62 checks would score 2.70.
| Tracker | Mean of 3 | No record | Checks right |
|---|---|---|---|
| NAUT | 2.61 | 0 | 60 of 62 |
| CF.info | 2.35 | 3 | 54 of 62 |
| DropsTab | 2.13 | 4 + 1 | 49 of 62 |
DropsTab's 4 + 1 is 4 rounds with no record and the GMI Cloud page that could not be read. Both rivals lost every point they lost to a round they had no record of, or for DropsTab to the unreadable page; every value they published was right. On the 17 rounds all 3 trackers carry, DropsTab and Crypto-Fundraising.info scored 46 of 46 and NAUT 45 of 46.
How did each tracker score round by round?
Amounts are the figures in the primary announcement. A cell reads as the checks a tracker got right out of the checks that applied to that round, and Walapay's lead check is the excluded one described in the method.
| Round | Raised | NAUT | CF.info | DropsTab |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Birch Hill |
$4M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Erebor |
$30M | 2 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Dataline |
$10.6M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 hylo_so |
$1M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Mural |
$15M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 0 of 3 |
 HoneyB |
$5M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
| Fission Labs | $10M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Meow |
$31.6M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 0 of 3 |
 Spout Finance |
$2M | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 |
 Strive |
$208M | 2 of 2 | 0 of 2 | 0 of 2 |
 DATA Network |
$30M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Soda Labs |
$3M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 IMMIX |
$3.5M | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 | 0 of 2 |
 Anyflo |
$1M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Noah |
$16M | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 |
 Nous Research |
$90M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Mecka |
$60M | 3 of 3 | 0 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Anvil |
$5M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 Spiko |
$90M | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 | 3 of 3 |
 hyperlink_xyz |
$2.5M | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 |
 Walapay |
$4.6M | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 |
 PERPTools |
$5M | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 | 2 of 2 |
 GMI Cloud |
$223M | 2 of 3 | 0 of 3 | 0 (unread) |
The 23 rounds total $850.8M raised.
How much did each of the largest rounds raise?
Ranked by the amount each company's own announcement disclosed. GMI Cloud and Strive together account for $431M of the $850.8M, and both are hard rounds to file: the first is an equity round inside a larger raise, the second is a warrant exercise by a listed company.
Where did NAUT miss on the most accurate crypto funding data?
NAUT's 2 misses are both the lead investor field, and both are fixable records.
- Erebor, $30M, 21 October. Robinhood's own newsroom states that Robinhood Ventures Fund I purchased $30M of preferred stock. NAUT's data shows the amount and the date and holds no backer on the round, so the lead check fails. Both rivals list Robinhood as the backer.
- GMI Cloud, $223M, 30 September. The announcement names ARCHIV as the lead on the $223M equity tranche. NAUT's record carries NVIDIA Venture Capital as its only backer, so the lead check fails. Crypto-Fundraising.info has no page for GMI Cloud, and DropsTab's page could not be read.
The rivals' gaps sit in coverage. Crypto-Fundraising.info had no record of the rounds at Strive, Mecka or GMI Cloud: its Mecka and GMI Cloud pages returned 404, and its Strive page lists only a 2022 pre-seed. DropsTab had no record of the October rounds at Mural, Meow, Strive or IMMIX: its Mural and Meow pages list no rounds, its Strive page lists a May 2025 round and its IMMIX page a 2023 seed round. DropsTab's GMI Cloud page could not be read, so that round's result for DropsTab is unknown. Every value either rival did publish matched the announcement.
Which crypto funding trackers were left untested?
NAUT fetched 7 crypto funding sites on 30 October 2026. 2 returned per-round values to a logged-out fetch and were scored. The other 5 are marked untested. Untested describes what happened to NAUT's fetch; it says nothing about their data.
| Site | Page fetched | What NAUT's fetch got |
|---|---|---|
| cryptorank.io | An ico funding-rounds page | HTTP 403 with a Cloudflare interstitial |
| defillama.com | /raises | HTTP 403 with a Cloudflare interstitial |
| rootdata.com | Homepage | HTTP 200, a 1,463-byte page shell with no readable round data |
| chainbroker.io | /fundraises/list/ | HTTP 200, navigation text and no round rows |
| coincarp.com | A currency page | HTTP 200, price data with no funding round values |
cryptorank.io, rootdata.com and defillama.com were the rivals the brief named. A reader who wants them in a scored test should treat the 2026-12-15 retest as the place it can happen, with a logged-in or licensed read.
What this tells a BD team
- Coverage decides what you see, so a 1 tracker workflow drops rounds. Across these 23 rounds, DropsTab had no record of 4 and an unreadable page for 1, and Crypto-Fundraising.info had no record of 3.
- The lead investor field is the weakest field anywhere, including on NAUT. On 6 of the 23 rounds the primary announcement named no lead at all.
- Listed-company and tranche raises are the biggest blind spot. Strive's $208M warrant exercise was missing from both rivals, and GMI Cloud's $223M tranche was missing from Crypto-Fundraising.info, with DropsTab's page unreadable.
- Start from the roundThe 23 rounds here total $850.8M, from Birch Hill at $4M to GMI Cloud at $223M.
- Open the company's NAUT pageEach name in the table links to its page, which carries the team and the channels NAUT holds for them.
- Check the lead before you name itOn 6 of the 23 rounds no announcement named a lead, so the firm you cite should come from the announcement.
What this tells a founder raising
- A tracker record is what an investor sees when they look you up, and the amount and date were right everywhere they existed in this test.
- The gap to fix is a missing round. If your raise is a tranche, a warrant exercise or an extension, check that each tracker carries it.
- The lead investor field is worth a direct request. 2 of NAUT's own 23 rounds carried no lead that matched the announcement, and both were records that could be corrected.
- Find your round on NAUTYour company page lists the rounds NAUT holds, with the amount, the date and the backers on record.
- Compare it to your announcementAmount, announce date and the lead you named, the same 3 checks this test ran on 23 rounds.
- Send a correctionA record that disagrees with your own release is a defect, and NAUT fixes those against the release.
Related reading on NAUT: RootData alternative: NAUT and DropsTab agree on 6 of 25 raises and Crypto funding rounds: 9 deals, $891.6M, Tether led Mural.
Can you pull this data through the NAUT API?
Round records come back through the data endpoints: GET https://api.naut.so/v1/projects/birch-hill returns the company behind this test's most recent round with its team, and GET https://api.naut.so/v1/investors/multicoin-capital returns a fund with its portfolio rows, each carrying company, roundType, amountUsd, announceDate and isLead, the 3 fields this test scored. A data or search call costs 5 credits, so the 23 companies in the table are 115 credits on a plan that starts at 3,000 credits a month on Essential at $49, documented at naut.so/docs/api and naut.so/pricing. Verified Telegram, email and LinkedIn for the people at these companies unlock on any paid NAUT plan, so start a 7-day trial if you need to reach them.
Crypto funding data accuracy FAQ
Which crypto funding tracker is most accurate?
On this test, the answer depends on coverage. On the preregistered headline measure, the mean score per round across 23 rounds announced between 30 September and 28 October 2026, NAUT scored 2.61 of 3, Crypto-Fundraising.info 2.35 and DropsTab 2.13, with 0, 3 and 5 rounds scored 0 for no record (DropsTab's 5 include 1 page that could not be read). On the 17 rounds all 3 trackers carry, DropsTab and Crypto-Fundraising.info scored 46 of 46 and NAUT 45 of 46, missing the lead investor on Erebor. NAUT published the test and sells 1 of the 3 tools.
Why does NAUT cover all 23 rounds?
The 23 rounds were drawn from NAUT's own round records, so NAUT has a record for every one by construction. That is why NAUT's lead on the headline measure comes from coverage, and why the 17 rounds all 3 trackers carry are the fairer comparison of values, where both rivals scored 46 of 46 and NAUT 45 of 46.
What was checked on each round?
3 things per round per tracker: the exact amount the announcement disclosed, a date within 3 days of the announcement, and the lead investor the announcement named. The lead check did not apply to 6 rounds whose announcement named no lead, or to Walapay, excluded after registration, which leaves 62 applicable checks across the 23 rounds.
Why were CryptoRank, RootData and DefiLlama left out of the scores?
cryptorank.io and defillama.com each returned HTTP 403 with a Cloudflare interstitial to NAUT's fetch on 30 October 2026, and rootdata.com returned a 1,463-byte page shell with no readable round data. They are marked untested, and NAUT's own record for 39 of the 40 sampled rounds was itself ingested from cryptorank.io, which this test discloses as a weakness in its own data pipeline.
Where can I find these 23 companies and their decision makers?
Every company in the table links to its page in NAUT's crypto funding rounds database, which lists the round, the backers on record and the team, from Birch Hill at $4M to GMI Cloud at $223M. Through the API the same records come back from GET https://api.naut.so/v1/projects/birch-hill at 5 credits a call, and verified Telegram, email and LinkedIn for those people unlock on any paid NAUT plan, so start a 7-day trial to reach them.
When will this test be rerun?
15 December 2026, with the same 3 checks, a fresh 40-round sample and an attempt to bring cryptorank.io, rootdata.com and defillama.com into the scored set.
Sources
- The test design, written before scoring:
prereg.jsonin NAUT's working folder for this article, registered 31 October 2026, with the sample, the rival list, the 3 checks, the headline measure and the retest date. - NAUT's own round records and backers: read from NAUT's database on 30 October 2026.
- Tracker pages, read on 31 October 2026: DropsTab per-company pages at
dropstab.com/coins/<slug>/fundraising(for example Birch Hill) and Crypto-Fundraising.info per-startup pages atcrypto-fundraising.info/startups/<slug>/(for example Birch Hill). Every per-round rival value in this article is what those pages returned, saved inds-rounds.jsonandcf-rounds.jsonin the same working folder. - Primary announcements, 1 per scored round: Birch Hill, Erebor, Dataline, hylo_so, Mural, HoneyB, Fission Labs, Meow, Spout Finance, Strive, DATA Network, Soda Labs, IMMIX, Anyflo, Noah, Nous Research, Mecka, Anvil, Spiko, hyperlink_xyz, Walapay, PERPTools, GMI Cloud
- Sites marked untested, fetched 30 October 2026: cryptorank.io, defillama.com, rootdata.com, chainbroker.io, coincarp.com
- NAUT API endpoints, parameters and prices: naut.so/docs/api and naut.so/pricing